General Review Process

This document describes the general review process for submission types listed below (grouped by submission date):

• Group 1: Panels, Special Sessions, Workshops
• Group 2: ACM Student Research Competition, BoFs, Demos, Lightning talks, Nifty Assignments, and Posters

If you are reviewing for Papers, please refer to the Paper Review Process and Paper Review Guidelines.

Reviewers provide high-quality reviews for submissions to provide authors with feedback so they may improve their work for presentation or future submission. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific comments in reviews that support numeric indicators.

Panels, Special Sessions, and Workshops will receive 3 reviews while all Group 2 submissions will receive 2 reviews.

All reviews are submitted through EasyChair. Reviewers are considered “Ordinary PC members” in EasyChair.

Submissions to Lightning Talks and Posters undergo a dual-anonymous review process and thus authors must anonymize submissions. All other submissions covered in this document are not anonymized and will undergo a single-anonymous review process where Reviewers are anonymous to each other and to the authors.

The Track Chairs of each track will lead any discussion and will make recommendations of acceptance of submissions to the Program Chairs.

As a Reviewer, you will need to:

• update your Reviewer profile,
• review author guidelines for the track you are reviewing,
• Optionally (as determined by the track chair) bid on papers you’re interested in reviewing,
• read and review the assigned submissions, and
• discuss each assigned submission with the track chairs.

Reviewer Timeline

The following dates describe the timeline for Reviewer work on SIGCSE TS 2022. Please consider your workload around these dates before accepting a Reviewer invitation.

Group 1 Timeline

Group 1 submissions are Panels, Special Sessions, and Workshops.

Group 2 Timeline

Group 2 submissions are ACM Student Research Competition, BoFs, Demos, Lightning talks, Nifty Assignments, and Posters.

Reviewer Profile

When you receive your invitation to review for SIGCSE TS 2022, please take a few moments to update your profile and select 3-5 topics that you are most qualified for reviewing. To do so, select SIGCSE TS 2022 > My topics from the menu.

Please check at most 5 topics! More topics will make it harder for the EasyChair system to make a good set of matches.

Bid

You may have a bidding period as set up by the Track Chair. If so, please bid within the specified time window. If you do not bid, we will use topics to assign submissions for review.

After the submission deadline and before reviewing can begin, Reviewers will bid on submissions they are interested in reviewing. Please bid for submissions where the title and abstract are in your area of expertise. Bidding will help with assigning submissions for review that you’re qualified and interested in reviewing!

Review

Before starting your review, you may be asked by the Track Chairs to bid on submissions and/or declare conflicts with any submitting authors. Please do so in a timely manner so we can avoid conflicts during assignment.

As a Reviewer, we ask that you carefully read each submission assigned to you and write a constructive review that concisely summarizes what you believe the submission to be about. When reviewing a submission, consider:

• the strengths and weaknesses,
• the contribution to an outstanding SIGCSE TS 2022 program and experience for attendees, and
• how it brings new ideas or extends current ideas through replication to the field and to practitioners and researchers of computing education.

Track specific Reviewer guidelines are available:

• Group 1: Panels, Special Sessions, Workshops
• Group 2: ACM Student Research Competition, BoFs, Demos, Lightning talks, Nifty Assignments, and Posters

Here are some tips and good practices for reviewing gathered from the SIGCSE community during SIGCSE TS 2021.

While your review text should clearly support your scores and recommendation, please do not include your preference for acceptance or rejection of a submission in the feedback to the authors. Instead, use the provided radio buttons to make a recommendation (the authors will not see this) based on your summary review and provide any details that refer to your recommendation directly in the confidential comments to the APC or track chairs. Remember that as a reviewer, you will only see a small portion of the submissions, so one that you recommend for acceptance may be rejected when considering the other reviewer recommendations and the full set of submissions.

Discussion

The discussion and recommendation period provides the opportunity for the Track Chairs to discuss reviews and feedback so they can provide the best recommendation for acceptance or rejection to the Program Chairs and that the submission is given full consideration in the review process. We ask that Reviewers engage in discussion when prompted by other reviewers, the Track Chairs by using the Comments feature of EasyChair. During this period you will be able to revise your review based on the discussion, but you are not required to do so.

The Track Chairs will make a final recommendation to the Program Chairs from your feedback.

Recalcitrant Reviewers

Reviewers who don’t submit reviews, have reviews with limited constructive feedback, or who submit inappropriate reviews will be removed from the reviewer list (as per SIGCSE policy). Recalcitrant reviewers will be informed of their removal from the reviewer list. Reviewers with repeated offenses (two within a three year period) will be removed from SIGCSE reviewing for three years.